TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,196
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Apr 24, 2019 14:52:22 GMT -5
What good does it do to bash Ava now for not having insurance? She has stated she didn't know she needed it. Her mortgage did not require it.
She knows now that she needs insurance and I hope she is getting it.
Saying Ava was "negligent" is going overboard.
|
|
Bunnysmom
New Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2017 21:54:51 GMT -5
Posts: 9
|
Post by Bunnysmom on Apr 24, 2019 16:54:51 GMT -5
I believe you can file for garnishment if that happens. I wouldn’t dismiss it so quickly. Chances are the reason you cant get any attorney to call you back is the settlement value is too low and they won’t waste their time with it. I tried to get a lawyer for a $2700 deposit that wasnt returned and all lawyers i contacted said to go to small claims. Did you go to small claims court? And were you able to collect? I may consider it. I will think it over during the weekend and make a decision on Monday. I still don't have the total amount of repairs yet, so I don't know if I can start a claim and give the amount later. Water damage has cost me $600 so far, but the work is not finished and it's going to be more. We haven't even looked at electric damage yet. I ended up not needing to go to court. I told him the document he provided (and backdated) was fraud and that i could prove. He would end up paying 3 times as much plus $100 plus lawyer fees (all per laws) so he refunded my deposit. But if he didnt i would have gone to small claims.
|
|
Poptart
Established Member
Joined: Sept 8, 2011 18:23:48 GMT -5
Posts: 433
|
Post by Poptart on Apr 24, 2019 17:39:58 GMT -5
What good does it do to bash Ava now for not having insurance? She has stated she didn't know she needed it. Her mortgage did not require it. She knows now that she needs insurance and I hope she is getting it. Saying Ava was "negligent" is going overboard. I think I may have worded that wrongly, I feel for Ava, but this whole get a lawyer thing is a waste of time, how much will an attorney make off of this case? And how do they plan on making the owner of the other unit responsible? He was also a victim (even if he is a jerk).
|
|
Works4me
Senior Member
Someone responded to your personal ad - a German Shepherd named Tara wants to have you for dinner...
Joined: May 5, 2012 12:11:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,522
|
Post by Works4me on Apr 25, 2019 7:39:32 GMT -5
Small claims court along with local law enforcement can authorize garnishment of bank accounts if payment is not made.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Apr 25, 2019 10:04:10 GMT -5
I don't think anyone's saying that Ava isn't a victim. They're just saying that just because he rented out his place doesn't mean that he's a victim of what happened to his place either - unless he told his tenant to flood it! Damage to your place is a risk of renting it out, but it doesn't make the damage all his fault. I don't know any landlord would go "welp, all this damage is my fault" when a tenant destroys their place except I guess you. He may well be legally responsible for it -- none of us know unless we know the law where she lives.
And none of this excuses the fact that he was an asshole to Ava.
I think the point some where trying to make is that she's called the renter negligent for not having renter's insurance and the landlord negligent for not requiring it - then it would follow that she herself was negligent in not having insurance. No, she can't go back and change anything, and yes this is a pain in the ass and it sucks that she has to deal with something that wasn't her fault, but they were no more negligent than she was with regards to insurance (and the landlord did have insurance, it just doesn't cover this circumstance).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2019 10:06:47 GMT -5
Small claims court along with local law enforcement can authorize garnishment of bank accounts if payment is not made. Yes, but you have to figure out exactly what bank they use yourself. I used to do judgement recovery for a living. A judgement means nothing if you can't collect it - and no lawyer or court will help you do it. You either have to do all the investigatory work yourself to find assets, submit interrogatories to the court and hope the person doesn't just turn around and file bankruptcy, or pay someone 70% of the judgement to collect it for you. The reason Ava hasn't been having luck with finding an atty is this case isn't enough money and collecting the judgement will not be as easy as many seem to think it is. Not in any way saying it's right, but it is how it goes. The only one here who would make any money is the lawyer.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 12:49:25 GMT -5
I don't think anyone's saying that Ava isn't a victim. They're just saying that just because he rented out his place doesn't mean that he's a victim of what happened to his place either - unless he told his tenant to flood it! Damage to your place is a risk of renting it out, but it doesn't make the damage all his fault. I don't know any landlord would go "welp, all this damage is my fault" when a tenant destroys their place except I guess you. He may well be legally responsible for it -- none of us know unless we know the law where she lives. And none of this excuses the fact that he was an asshole to Ava. I think the point some where trying to make is that she's called the renter negligent for not having renter's insurance and the landlord negligent for not requiring it - then it would follow that she herself was negligent in not having insurance. No, she can't go back and change anything, and yes this is a pain in the ass and it sucks that she has to deal with something that wasn't her fault, but they were no more negligent than she was with regards to insurance (and the landlord did have insurance, it just doesn't cover this circumstance). Look this is why I have suggested consulting a lawyer for this from day one- because laws vary by state, and that will determine who is legally at fault. I am glad she is doing so, and it is frustrating reading how difficult it is for her to get a meeting with an attorney over this. I am sympathetic to the landlord; I used to be one. I had to get rid of a tenant at one point, and those were anxious days. However that does not change the fact that the landlord/ owner is legally responsible for what happens in their unit (at least in my state). It isn't "fair" necessarily, just like life. But by deciding to rent, one takes on some more responsibilities in this unfortunate regard.Again, the attorney, if she can ever get to see one, will have more insight than any of us on just where this all breaks down in her state, but I know how it does in mine. And finally, yes, she should absolutely have insurance. However that is not relevant if the landlord is legally at fault. In fact, whether or not the insurance would even be the payee of last resort is dependent on circumstances, the policy, and possibly state law. Is the landlord legally responsible for what happens in their unit when "what happens" is vandalism by someone who is not legally allowed to be there and is not a tenant?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,554
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 25, 2019 13:52:15 GMT -5
Look this is why I have suggested consulting a lawyer for this from day one- because laws vary by state, and that will determine who is legally at fault. I am glad she is doing so, and it is frustrating reading how difficult it is for her to get a meeting with an attorney over this. I am sympathetic to the landlord; I used to be one. I had to get rid of a tenant at one point, and those were anxious days. However that does not change the fact that the landlord/ owner is legally responsible for what happens in their unit (at least in my state). It isn't "fair" necessarily, just like life. But by deciding to rent, one takes on some more responsibilities in this unfortunate regard.Again, the attorney, if she can ever get to see one, will have more insight than any of us on just where this all breaks down in her state, but I know how it does in mine. And finally, yes, she should absolutely have insurance. However that is not relevant if the landlord is legally at fault. In fact, whether or not the insurance would even be the payee of last resort is dependent on circumstances, the policy, and possibly state law. Is the landlord legally responsible for what happens in their unit when "what happens" is vandalism by someone who is not legally allowed to be there and is not a tenant? if the someone accessed the space via keys that were not returned to the landlord, and the locks not changed, then yes. I'd say there's some sort of liability to the landlord for being lackadaisical in securing his property after evicting someone.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 14:00:45 GMT -5
Is the landlord legally responsible for what happens in their unit when "what happens" is vandalism by someone who is not legally allowed to be there and is not a tenant? if the someone accessed the space via keys that were not returned to the landlord, and the locks not changed, then yes. I'd say there's some sort of liability to the landlord for being lackadaisical in securing his property after evicting someone. So then the same logic holds for being someone who gives your keys to a friend/family member, or someone who simply leaves their door unlocked or window unlocked. If someone doesn't have to "break in" to your house in order to vandalize it, then the victim is responsible for the acts of the criminal because they didn't take enough care to protect their property? Does that just apply to vandalism? Or if you fail to protect yourself/your property are you also responsible for cases of assault, robbery, etc?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,554
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 25, 2019 14:06:29 GMT -5
this is where I would defer to the laws of Ava's state. I can't imagine the landlord wouldn't be held at least partly responsible, especially if the former tenant isn't found. Ava may have been lax in not carrying her own insurance, but I fail to see how any part of what damage to her unit was CAUSED by anything she did.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 14:26:00 GMT -5
this is where I would defer to the laws of Ava's state. I can't imagine the landlord wouldn't be held at least partly responsible, especially if the former tenant isn't found. Ava may have been lax in not carrying her own insurance, but I fail to see how any part of what damage to her unit was CAUSED by anything she did. I don't think any of the damage was caused by anything she did, I haven't heard anyone say she even contributed to the damage at all. Carrying or not carrying insurance doesn't determine whether she caused any damage (it might contribute to not mitigating her damages promptly, but that doesn't seem to be the case either). I'm having a hard time with "especially if the former tenant isn't found". The landlord is either responsible in some way or he isn't. I'm not aware of any legal standing that says "this person is responsible unless you can't find this person, at which point we'll assign responsibility to someone else". It might end up that the landlord is held responsible and is the only person with money to go after...but I don't think it's going to be an issue of whether the person can be "found" or not that dictates responsibility (because finding someone who has no money civilly isn't much different than not finding them, it's pretty well useless).
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 14:29:07 GMT -5
I'd be very interested if anyone knows of ANY state where any kind of landlord/tenant law in regards to criminal acts carries over to a time when the tenant is gone and is now an ex-tenant. Specifically, it would be interesting to see the timeframe in which a landlord continues to be responsible for the crimes of a former tenant before they can be considered off-the-hook for a former tenant's crimes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2019 14:42:21 GMT -5
this is where I would defer to the laws of Ava's state. I can't imagine the landlord wouldn't be held at least partly responsible, especially if the former tenant isn't found. Ava may have been lax in not carrying her own insurance, but I fail to see how any part of what damage to her unit was CAUSED by anything she did. I don't think any of the damage was caused by anything she did, I haven't heard anyone say she even contributed to the damage at all. Carrying or not carrying insurance doesn't determine whether she caused any damage (it might contribute to not mitigating her damages promptly, but that doesn't seem to be the case either). I'm having a hard time with "especially if the former tenant isn't found". The landlord is either responsible in some way or he isn't. I'm not aware of any legal standing that says "this person is responsible unless you can't find this person, at which point we'll assign responsibility to someone else". It might end up that the landlord is held responsible and is the only person with money to go after...but I don't think it's going to be an issue of whether the person can be "found" or not that dictates responsibility (because finding someone who has no money civilly isn't much different than not finding them, it's pretty well useless). I think what Chiver was thinking about is joint liability. If you owe money for a joint account, a credit card company can choose which of you to pursue for collection on whatever basis they choose. They don't have to limit your liability to 50%. They usually go after the "easiest" target, which is often the one with the deepest pockets but could just as readily be the one easiest to locate.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,554
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 25, 2019 14:45:14 GMT -5
this is where I would defer to the laws of Ava's state. I can't imagine the landlord wouldn't be held at least partly responsible, especially if the former tenant isn't found. Ava may have been lax in not carrying her own insurance, but I fail to see how any part of what damage to her unit was CAUSED by anything she did. I don't think any of the damage was caused by anything she did, I haven't heard anyone say she even contributed to the damage at all. Carrying or not carrying insurance doesn't determine whether she caused any damage (it might contribute to not mitigating her damages promptly, but that doesn't seem to be the case either). I'm having a hard time with " especially if the former tenant isn't found". The landlord is either responsible in some way or he isn't. I'm not aware of any legal standing that says "this person is responsible unless you can't find this person, at which point we'll assign responsibility to someone else". It might end up that the landlord is held responsible and is the only person with money to go after...but I don't think it's going to be an issue of whether the person can be "found" or not that dictates responsibility (because finding someone who has no money civilly isn't much different than not finding them, it's pretty well useless). the bold may not have been the best choice of words on my part, I'll own that. but at the end of the day, if the landlord didn't collect keys or change locks, he essentially left the front door wide open for this particular former tenant to come back at will. that's negligence, and that resulted in damage to someone else's property. in my mind, that's how you find him legally responsible. but again, I don't live in CT and can't speak for that state's laws.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,554
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 25, 2019 14:46:36 GMT -5
I'd be very interested if anyone knows of ANY state where any kind of landlord/tenant law in regards to criminal acts carries over to a time when the tenant is gone and is now an ex-tenant. Specifically, it would be interesting to see the timeframe in which a landlord continues to be responsible for the crimes of a former tenant before they can be considered off-the-hook for a former tenant's crimes. you keep neglecting to include the detail where keys weren't collected and the locks weren't changed. that's not insignificant. and thank you, Susana. that's a way better way to phrase it.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 14:46:54 GMT -5
I don't think any of the damage was caused by anything she did, I haven't heard anyone say she even contributed to the damage at all. Carrying or not carrying insurance doesn't determine whether she caused any damage (it might contribute to not mitigating her damages promptly, but that doesn't seem to be the case either). I'm having a hard time with "especially if the former tenant isn't found". The landlord is either responsible in some way or he isn't. I'm not aware of any legal standing that says "this person is responsible unless you can't find this person, at which point we'll assign responsibility to someone else". It might end up that the landlord is held responsible and is the only person with money to go after...but I don't think it's going to be an issue of whether the person can be "found" or not that dictates responsibility (because finding someone who has no money civilly isn't much different than not finding them, it's pretty well useless). I think what Chiver was thinking about is joint liability. If you owe money for a joint account, a credit card company can choose which of you to pursue for collection on whatever basis they choose. They don't have to limit your liability to 50%. They usually go after the "easiest" target, which is often the one with the deepest pockets but could just as readily be the one easiest to locate. Yes, my point is that joint liability is irrelevant to whether the tenant is "found". Even if you find the guy, you're not going to go after him because he has no money. Being "found" is irrelevant, having the money to pay a judgement matters. And either way, he's either responsible or he isn't. He isn't more or less responsible when a tenant is found, or more or less responsible because he has money. He is responsible (to some degree) or he isn't. His level of responsibility doesn't change.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 25, 2019 14:51:56 GMT -5
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 14:51:57 GMT -5
I'd be very interested if anyone knows of ANY state where any kind of landlord/tenant law in regards to criminal acts carries over to a time when the tenant is gone and is now an ex-tenant. Specifically, it would be interesting to see the timeframe in which a landlord continues to be responsible for the crimes of a former tenant before they can be considered off-the-hook for a former tenant's crimes. you keep neglecting to include the detail where keys weren't collected and the locks weren't changed. that's not insignificant. and thank you, Susana. that's a way better way to phrase it. It's absolutely insignificant as to whether he is an ex-tenant or not. So if you happen to leave your house unlocked, which is even MORE irresponsible than having it locked with 1 person having the keys...should you be held responsible if someone illegally enters your home and commits a crime which harms others? We're really right back to "you didn't take actions to stop someone from committing a crime you didn't know they were going to commit, therefore you are responsible for it". That seems...dangerous as either a legal or ethical proclamation.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Apr 25, 2019 14:53:20 GMT -5
I think what Chiver was thinking about is joint liability. If you owe money for a joint account, a credit card company can choose which of you to pursue for collection on whatever basis they choose. They don't have to limit your liability to 50%. They usually go after the "easiest" target, which is often the one with the deepest pockets but could just as readily be the one easiest to locate. Yes, my point is that joint liability is irrelevant to whether the tenant is "found". Even if you find the guy, you're not going to go after him because he has no money. Being "found" is irrelevant, having the money to pay a judgement matters. And either way, he's either responsible or he isn't. He isn't more or less responsible when a tenant is found, or more or less responsible because he has money. He is responsible (to some degree) or he isn't. His level of responsibility doesn't change. I would think the LL would fill the police report out and file charges for vandalism, etc. The LL owns the unit. The LL did not shut the water off after the tenant was evicted. The LL to the best of our knowledge did not collect the keys or better yet, change the locks. Even if the unit was empty for a month, and a vagrant breaks in, vandalizes and floods the unit, who has responsibility for monetary damage to a second party? The landlord.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 14:56:05 GMT -5
Did you read that article? It's about whether a rental agent is responsible for a tenant's actions compared to the landlord when a tenant's unruly actions receive imposed fines by HOAs. All that means is that if this particular tenant broke an HOA rule, the landlord is on the hook to pay it vs the rental agent. How exactly does that relate to this scenario?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,554
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 25, 2019 14:56:29 GMT -5
you keep neglecting to include the detail where keys weren't collected and the locks weren't changed. that's not insignificant. and thank you, Susana. that's a way better way to phrase it. It's absolutely insignificant as to whether he is an ex-tenant or not. So if you happen to leave your house unlocked, which is even MORE irresponsible than having it locked with 1 person having the keys...should you be held responsible if someone illegally enters your home and commits a crime which harms others? We're really right back to "you didn't take actions to stop someone from committing a crime you didn't know they were going to commit, therefore you are responsible for it". That seems...dangerous as either a legal or ethical proclamation. I would think so, yes. because you didn't secure your property.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 14:56:54 GMT -5
Yes, my point is that joint liability is irrelevant to whether the tenant is "found". Even if you find the guy, you're not going to go after him because he has no money. Being "found" is irrelevant, having the money to pay a judgement matters. And either way, he's either responsible or he isn't. He isn't more or less responsible when a tenant is found, or more or less responsible because he has money. He is responsible (to some degree) or he isn't. His level of responsibility doesn't change. I would think the LL would fill the police report out and file charges for vandalism, etc. The LL owns the unit. The LL did not shut the water off after the tenant was evicted. The LL to the best of our knowledge did not collect the keys or better yet, change the locks. Even if the unit was empty for a month, and a vagrant breaks in, vandalizes and floods the unit, who has responsibility for monetary damage to a second party? The landlord. Based on what law?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Apr 25, 2019 14:57:44 GMT -5
Ummm....that's a South African website.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 25, 2019 14:57:58 GMT -5
Did you read that article? It's about whether a rental agent is responsible for a tenant's actions compared to the landlord when a tenant's unruly actions receive imposed fines by HOAs. All that means is that if this particular tenant broke an HOA rule, the landlord is on the hook to pay it vs the rental agent. How exactly does that relate to this scenario?Seriously? I'm pretty sure it's against the HOA rules to do flood damage to the neighbour's property.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 14:59:10 GMT -5
It's absolutely insignificant as to whether he is an ex-tenant or not. So if you happen to leave your house unlocked, which is even MORE irresponsible than having it locked with 1 person having the keys...should you be held responsible if someone illegally enters your home and commits a crime which harms others? We're really right back to "you didn't take actions to stop someone from committing a crime you didn't know they were going to commit, therefore you are responsible for it". That seems...dangerous as either a legal or ethical proclamation. I would think so, yes. because you didn't secure your property. At least you're one of the few people being consistent... You think people should be civilly responsible? Or also criminally responsible for not securing their property?
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 25, 2019 15:00:17 GMT -5
Ummm....that's a South African website. Shrug shoulders...it addresses hoops carrying on about not being able to hold landlords responsible for tenants behaviour.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2019 15:01:00 GMT -5
Did you read that article? It's about whether a rental agent is responsible for a tenant's actions compared to the landlord when a tenant's unruly actions receive imposed fines by HOAs. All that means is that if this particular tenant broke an HOA rule, the landlord is on the hook to pay it vs the rental agent. How exactly does that relate to this scenario?Seriously? I'm pretty sure it's against the HOA rules to do flood damage to the neighbour's property. Is the HOA assessing a fine against the property? And if so, is there a question as to whether the landlord or a rental agent is responsible for it?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Apr 25, 2019 15:01:49 GMT -5
Ummm....that's a South African website. Shrug shoulders...it addresses hoops carrying on about not being able to hold landlords responsible for tenants behaviour. Yes....in South Africa. Which is decidedly not Connecticut.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 25, 2019 15:01:49 GMT -5
you keep neglecting to include the detail where keys weren't collected and the locks weren't changed. that's not insignificant. and thank you, Susana. that's a way better way to phrase it. It's absolutely insignificant as to whether he is an ex-tenant or not.
So if you happen to leave your house unlocked, which is even MORE irresponsible than having it locked with 1 person having the keys...should you be held responsible if someone illegally enters your home and commits a crime which harms others? We're really right back to "you didn't take actions to stop someone from committing a crime you didn't know they were going to commit, therefore you are responsible for it". That seems...dangerous as either a legal or ethical proclamation. That is the most relevant point.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,554
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 25, 2019 15:02:25 GMT -5
I would think so, yes. because you didn't secure your property. At least you're one of the few people being consistent... You think people should be civilly responsible? Or also criminally responsible for not securing their property? civilly, yes. as the property owner, you have a responsibility to secure your property in a way that mitigates the risk to other people and property. this guy didn't do that. I don't think criminal responsibility is appropriate b/c the landlord himself didn't vandalize the place.
|
|